PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5,KOLKATA vs. AMIT KUMAR JAIN

Bench: :

condonation of delay is allowed. ITAT/113/2022 This appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for brevity) is directed against the order dated 28th February, 2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “SMC” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 2232/Kol/2018 for the assessment year 2014-2015. The revenue has raised the following

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S NARSINGH ISPAT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : 11Th March, 2024 Appearance : M S. Smita Das De, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Kartik Kurmy, Adv. (Vc) Mr. Indranil Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Subrata Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Debayan Dutta, Adv. …For Respondent. The Court : We Have Heard Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Standing Counsel Appearing For The Appellant Revenue & Mr. Kartik Kurmy, Learned Counsel Appearing For The Respondent Assessee. There Is A Delay Of 59 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Given By The Appellant Department For Not Preferring The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Hence, The Condone Delay Petition Is Allowed & Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned.

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2 This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 26th July, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, `B’ Bench, Kolkata, in I.T.A No.255/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised the following substantial

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, KOLKATA vs. SHRI AJAY KUMAR SHAW

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

unexplained cash-credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and suspicious transaction in shares cannot be exempted under Section 10(38) of the Act? B. Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in deleting the addition of undisclosed income ignoring the larger

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S BRIGHT COMMODEAL PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das)

condonation of delay being IA No: GA/1/2025 is allowed. This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging the order passed by the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” - Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.96/Kol/2024 dated 24.06.2024 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL -1, KOLKATA vs. SURAJ SAHANA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

credit worthiness of the company has not been proved and therefore one of the crucial tests has not been fulfilled and the assessing officer was justified in making the addition. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision in PCIT Versus NRA Iron and Steel Private Limited 83.This decision is pressed into service to emphasis that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15, KOLKATA vs. SMT. BABITA AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

credit worthiness of the company has not been proved and therefore one of the crucial tests has not been fulfilled and the assessing officer was justified in making the addition. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision in PCIT Versus NRA Iron and Steel Private Limited 83.This decision is pressed into service to emphasis that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-SILIGURI vs. SHEKHAR AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

credit worthiness of the company has not been proved and therefore one of the crucial tests has not been fulfilled and the assessing officer was justified in making the addition. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision in PCIT Versus NRA Iron and Steel Private Limited 83.This decision is pressed into service to emphasis that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, KOLKATA vs. MUKTA AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

credit worthiness of the company has not been proved and therefore one of the crucial tests has not been fulfilled and the assessing officer was justified in making the addition. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision in PCIT Versus NRA Iron and Steel Private Limited 83.This decision is pressed into service to emphasis that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. POOJA JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

credit worthiness of the company has not been proved and therefore one of the crucial tests has not been fulfilled and the assessing officer was justified in making the addition. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision in PCIT Versus NRA Iron and Steel Private Limited 83.This decision is pressed into service to emphasis that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MUKESH SARAOGI (HUF)

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

credit worthiness of the company has not been proved and therefore one of the crucial tests has not been fulfilled and the assessing officer was justified in making the addition. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision in PCIT Versus NRA Iron and Steel Private Limited 83.This decision is pressed into service to emphasis that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,BURDWAN vs. BIJAYA TAH

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

credit worthiness of the company has not been proved and therefore one of the crucial tests has not been fulfilled and the assessing officer was justified in making the addition. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision in PCIT Versus NRA Iron and Steel Private Limited 83.This decision is pressed into service to emphasis that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5,KOLKATA vs. SWATI BAJAJ

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

credit worthiness of the company has not been proved and therefore one of the crucial tests has not been fulfilled and the assessing officer was justified in making the addition. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision in PCIT Versus NRA Iron and Steel Private Limited 83.This decision is pressed into service to emphasis that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18, KOLKATA vs. SRI VIKASH GOEL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

credit worthiness of the company has not been proved and therefore one of the crucial tests has not been fulfilled and the assessing officer was justified in making the addition. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision in PCIT Versus NRA Iron and Steel Private Limited 83.This decision is pressed into service to emphasis that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. KRISHNA KUMAR PARSURAMKA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

credit worthiness of the company has not been proved and therefore one of the crucial tests has not been fulfilled and the assessing officer was justified in making the addition. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision in PCIT Versus NRA Iron and Steel Private Limited 83.This decision is pressed into service to emphasis that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, KOLKATA vs. GITESH TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

credit worthiness of the company has not been proved and therefore one of the crucial tests has not been fulfilled and the assessing officer was justified in making the addition. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision in PCIT Versus NRA Iron and Steel Private Limited 83.This decision is pressed into service to emphasis that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI vs. PRAKASHO DEVI SARIA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

credit worthiness of the company has not been proved and therefore one of the crucial tests has not been fulfilled and the assessing officer was justified in making the addition. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision in PCIT Versus NRA Iron and Steel Private Limited 83.This decision is pressed into service to emphasis that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9, KOLKATA vs. PUSPA DEVI TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

credit worthiness of the company has not been proved and therefore one of the crucial tests has not been fulfilled and the assessing officer was justified in making the addition. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision in PCIT Versus NRA Iron and Steel Private Limited 83.This decision is pressed into service to emphasis that

PR CIT 9, KOLKATA vs. MANISHA TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

credit worthiness of the company has not been proved and therefore one of the crucial tests has not been fulfilled and the assessing officer was justified in making the addition. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision in PCIT Versus NRA Iron and Steel Private Limited 83.This decision is pressed into service to emphasis that